Tizon v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line
| Decision Date | 12 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-2533,92-2533 |
| Citation | 645 So.2d 504 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2164 Jose Manuel TIZON, Appellant, v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Lipcon, Cooper & Wolfe and Christine M. Ng and Sharon Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.
Keller Houck & Shinkle, Hicks, Anderson & Blum and Mark Hicks, Miami, for appellees.
Before BASKIN, JORGENSON and GREEN.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for personal injuries allegedly sustained by Jose Manuel Tizon ("Tizon") during the course of his employment on a ship owned and operated by Royal Caribbean Cruise, Line, A/S Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. ("RCCL"). Tizon sued RCCL for, among other things, Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 688, negligence, unseaworthiness and maintenance and cure. On appeal, Tizon cites six points as error, one of which warrants discussion and reversal for a new trial.
Tizon was a wine steward on the cruise ship Sovereign of the Seas. Tizon's primary task was to serve wine to passengers at the two dinner sittings. Tizon was also assigned the task of washing glasses between the sittings. On August 8, 1990, Tizon says that he slipped on some liquid which had accumulated around the racks of dirty glasses. He claims that he fell and twisted his back while he was rushing around trying to get the glasses washed for the second dinner period. Tizon further alleged that he not was given rubber boots to wear similar to those provided to the ship's dishwashers.
On the day after his injury, Tizon went to see the ship's doctor and complained of back pain. The doctor gave him some anti-inflammatory medication and sent him back to work. On that same day, Tizon had to move cases of wine and champagne for storage. After moving the boxes, Tizon claims he had pain in his back which radiated down to his legs. Tizon went back to the ship's doctor who ultimately signed him off the ship on August 11, 1990. The doctor sent Tizon to the Sunshine Medical Clinic, which has an office at the Port of Miami. The Sunshine Medical Clinic referred Tizon to Dr. Carvajal, an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed a possible herniated disk.
On October 18, 1990, Tizon went to see Dr. Lustgarten, a neurosurgeon. Dr. Lustgarten also diagnosed a herniated disk. In December 1990, Dr. Lustgarten performed surgery on Tizon's back to relieve his pain. The surgery confirmed a herniated disk. Dr. Lustgarten testified that based upon the history given by Tizon, it was within reasonable medical probability that Tizon had herniated his disk during the incident on August 8, 1990.
The case went to trial before a jury. The jury returned a defense verdict on the issues of negligence and unseaworthiness. On the issue of maintenance and cure, the jury awarded Tizon $17,000, a matter not the subject of the instant appeal.
Tizon asserts, among other things, that the trial court erred during voir dire by refusing to excuse a prospective juror for cause who indicated repeatedly that she could not be fair and impartial:
Mr. Lipcon: ... Mr. Tizon had surgery for a herniated disk and pressure on his nerves running down into his leg or legs. Have any of you ever had spinal surgery? When I say "you" I mean you or your family members, spouse, or children.
Yes, ma'am.
Juror Safinski: My husband had the same thing.
Mr. Lipcon: How long ago was that, approximately?
Juror Safinski: Almost two years.
Mr. Lipcon: And how is he doing?
Juror Safinski: Fine.
Mr. Lipcon: Is he?
Juror Safinski: Fine.
Mr. Lipcon: Did he make a good recovery?
Juror Safinski: Yes.
Mr. Lipcon: Does he have any limitations? The doctor told him don't do that, you know?
Juror Safinski: No.
Mr. Lipcon: ... Okay. Mrs. Safinski? Did I pronounce that right?
Juror Safinski: Yes.
Mr. Lipcon: Can you put out of your mind what your husband went through in spinal surgery and listen to what Mr. Tizon went through, because, you know, everybody turns out differently and things like that and we're going to have the doctors here and the records and Mr. Tizon will say what he has been through, so can you put that aside?
Juror Safinski: Everyone that I know that has had that surgery has had very good results.
Mr. Lipcon: Would you put that aside?
Juror Safinski: I think it would be kind of tough.
Mr. Lipcon: You think you would have a difficult time doing that?
Juror Safinski: I think so.
* * * * * *
Mr. Lipcon: ... Have any of you ever been a defendant in a court case? In other words, has anybody sued you for one reason or another? When I say "you" I mean you or your immediate family.
Juror Safinski: As a doctor, my husband has been sued.
Mr. Lipcon: Okay. Would that influence you in listening to a case where you see a man sue for his injuries.
Juror Safinski: Definitely.
Mr. Lipcon: It would definitely influence you?
Juror Safinski: Definitely.
Mr. Lipcon: You think that you would have a hard time?
Juror Safinski: We're not trying a doctor, but there's an injury.
The Court: Sorry, I didn't hear that.
Juror Safinski: It's not against a doctor, but there is an injury involved and I don't know how impartial I could be.
Mr. Lipcon: We're going to claim that some of the care given here is no good. Do you think that would cause you to have difficulty with the case?
Juror Safinski: Definitely.
When counsel for RCCL voir dired Mrs. Safinski, he inquired of her previous answers:
Mr. Houck: Ms. Safinski, you mentioned that it might be difficult for you to put aside some things which involve people with back cases. Are you willing to agree to try as best you can to be fair and impartial in this case?
Juror Safinski: Yes.
Mr. Houck: And would you agree to follow the law as the judge instructs you?
Juror Safinski: Definitely.
Later, the trial court further probed Mrs. Safinski as follows:
The Court: You have stated that you felt that you might not be impartial?
Juror Safinski: Well, my husband is a physician. He's had the back operation that they were speaking of.
The Court: Well, you recognize that what happened to him is not what is here before us?
Juror Safinski: That's true.
The Court: You recognize that this would be a presentation to people who would have to make a determination of the facts as they have them, as received through evidence that is here in this courtroom and in this courtroom only? It doesn't apply to the outside world. It doesn't apply to any of your friends or your experiences. It doesn't apply to anything except what happened to the parties who are in this courtroom. You understand that?
Juror Safinski: (Juror nods head in the affirmative).
The Court: Do you feel that you can be fair and impartial as to what happened to other people?
Juror Safinski: Yes.
The Court: Do you feel that you can refrain from making any determination until you have heard all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State, 93-1048
...427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 523 So.2d 579 (Fla.1988); Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 24 (Fla.1959); Tizon v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 645 So.2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Williams v. State, 638 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 648 So.2d 724 (Fla.1994); Montozzi v. State,......
-
Seadler v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
...error analysis and instead require a new trial whenever there is a showing that an error occurred"); Tizon v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line , 645 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ("It is reversible error [in a civil case] to deny a challenge for cause, thereby forcing a party to ‘waste’ a p......
-
Gootee v. Clevinger
...and Life, 728 So.2d 354, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Massad v. State, 703 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Tizon v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 645 So.2d 504, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Jenkins v. Humana, Inc., 553 So.2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Club West, Inc. v. Tropigas, Inc., 514 So.2d 426 (F......
-
Seadler v. Marina Bay Resort Condo. Ass'n
... ... showing that an error occurred"); Tizon v. Royal ... Caribbean Cruise Line , 645 So.2d 504, ... ...
-
Reining in juror misconduct: practical suggestions for judges and lawyers.
...at the trial[,] he should be excused on motion of a party, or by [the] court on its own motion." Tizon v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, 645 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1994). However, some judges may be more willing to grant a peremptory challenge to each party to remedy a situation wher......